READ-OPTION: FACT OR FICTION ON THE AGE METRIC?

My read-option question for you all this week comes from the first position of the column, because I am generally curious to hear your thoughts.

How much stock do you put into the age metric, or, more importantly, the age thresholds saying that if a prospect doesn’t have “X” amount of his team’s production by a certain age, they’re not worth taking over a player who is younger and may have a higher ceiling but a lower floor?

Bucs WR Mike Evans – Photo by: Getty Images

The “what if” is why we all love the NFL draft. However, what most fans fail to accept is that, in most cases, players don’t fix usually their biggest weaknesses at the next level, what happens in that their strengths get stronger. If a wide receiver has trouble separating in college, that problem isn’t going to go away in the NFL. If a cornerback doesn’t have the quickness to move his feet and mirror a wide receiver, that’s not going away, either. Those examples go on and on.

When you invest in players that are younger, you sometimes get to convince yourself that weaknesses aren’t really weaknesses and they’re just situational flaws that your team (as a general manager or head coach) can fix. 

We hear analysts all the time give older players bonus scouting points for finishing school or being a four-year player. But is that really a bonus? It doesn’t always work like that. In fact, the numbers show that usually isn’t the case. If you didn’t see something from a player in the three years that they were at lower-level competition, you most likely won’t see it in the pros.

Knowing that, how much weight do you out into the age metric, and are you a believer in the market share numbers, or, the principle of their thresholds at each age during a player’s collegiate career?